When considering BBC bias, I am reminded of this old Sherlock Holmes story.
“Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention? said Inspector Gregory”To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.” said Holmes”The dog did nothing in the night-time.” said Gregory “That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.
Now then, the BBC has been fawning over Barack Hussein Obama as the new messiah, I guess that figures since he is even further to the left than Hillary Clinton. So the question is WHY has the BBC kept mute over the startling revelations that Obama both met with and indeed raised funds at the home of two US terrorists – William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. These two individuals were part of the “Weathermen” – a terrorist group that bombed U.S. government buildings, and whose leader (a declared Obama supporter) went on record saying he wish he’d targeted more! Apparently this is not news in BBC land? How odd!
“Personally I’m completely bored of the Israel/Palestine stuff – it’s nowhere near the most ‘dangerous’ issue of the day. The enonomy is wobbling, there’s a war brewing in Serbia, the Russia situation etc etc etc???!!!
Cockney | 26.02.08 – 2:11 pm”
Sorry to bore you, but the Israel/ Palestine thing is the area where the BBC bias is the most apparent, and it is, for some of us, perhaps more personally resonant than it is for you. But also the potential danger is very real for all.
Scroll past if you don’t like it.
I just scroll past Hillhunt – ignoring him is the best medicine.
Lets face it the bias in the BBC is anti Israel and pro Palestinian, pro Democrat and anti Republican, pro Islam and anti Christian, pro Labout and anti Conservative, pro man-made climate change and anti any other reason.
We each notice the bias where out interests lie and drawing them to the attention of others on this blog we make people aware and question the BBC on all its output.
Just ignore the trolls and all bloggers just keep up the good work
Nothing will ever change the Beebs policy of calling mass murderers “militants” and mass murder “bombings.” This make the Beeb accomplices to mass murder.
Andy
“Not to mention their endless and shameless promotion of Global Warming, recently renamed Climate Change. Just as dangerous in my opinion.
Andy | 26.02.08 – 2:01 pm”
If the BBC bias was the other way round and they were denying man-made global warming and encouraging us to ignore something that was actually reversible by using fewer plastic bags, I could see the danger. As it is, they are preaching the opposite. I am scientifically dyslexic so my skepticism of MMGW is based only on hot air. (small joke)
Prudent behaviour ‘just in case’ seems harmless to me. I don’t like the moralising that goes with it. I used a bag-for-life once, but subsequently forgot to take it out of the car. I have some low energy darkbulbs casting gloom and causing depression. I don’t leave stuff on standby. I am good. But I can’t quite see the danger to which you allude.
Deborah
I wish everyone would ignore Hillhunt. The little mid-air dot above his signature is even more annoying than all the sneers and jibes put together.
In my opinion the Beeb’s general anti Americanism is worse than its pro-democrat bias, and I feel their pro-labour stance is faltering a bit. They can smell blood. The Islam thing is horrendous and the demonisation of Israel is pernicious and responsible for widespread, albeit low level, anti-semitism.
Sheila:
It takes only a true, devout lefty airhead such as yourself to refer to everyone who opposes something because it is dangerous, murderous and irrational as being ‘phobic’.
Can I suggest that you yourself are just an irrationalaphobe.
Or perhaps just a complete moron.
The two are interchangeable.
Actualy that should be rationalaphobe.
Or maybe even, commonsenseaphobe.
Or perhaps survivalaphobe.
Sue
“But I can’t quite see the danger to which you allude.”
Fair point as its not so in-your-face as their anti-Israel stuff.
I think the whole BBC / Greenpeace / Luddite opposition to cheap international travel and existing methods of energy production would be hugely damaging.
Many of their ilk oppose free market capitalism and industrial development in 3rd World countries. What would undoubtedly bring jobs, money, higher standards of living and reduced mortality rates are discouraged so as to satisfy the green guilt complex.
Another example: the BBC’s obsession with renewable energy. Renewables have a serious problem with intermittency. Tides turn and the sun/wind rises and falls, along with their exploitable power.
The grubby reality is that our 21st century lifestyle demands a 24-hour uninterrupted energy supply, otherwise hospital patients will die, central heating systems cease to pump, fridges and freezers will thaw and banking systems collapse, etc.
The BBC and Left conveniently ignore issues like this.
Andy,
I disagree. They don’t just ignore it, they don’t care about the valid points you raise because renewables uber alles is an article of the new faith !
“Mr Obama also sought to distance himself from an endorsement from the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, the controversial Chicago-based minister who has made numerous anti-Semitic comments in the past.
The senator said he hadn’t sought the endorsement, and that he had denounced the remarks.”
From the Daily Mail reporting the most recent debate between Obama and Clinton.
Just because someone endorses you does not mean you solicited their support.
If the leader of the BNP endorsed David Cameron I am sure he would say he did not seek the endorsement or want it, but it would still exist.
I just do not see that argument as being valid.
I found it interesting that you refer to ‘Barack Hussein Obama’. I have followed the election but I hadn’t realised ‘Hussein’ was his middle name. It made me wonder why it was used on this site but not in the mainstream media.
It seems there has been some criticism of the use of ‘Hussein’:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/cunningham.mccain/
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/rove_dont_hussein_obama_1.php
Perhaps you could take some lessons in impartiality from the BBC? Or perhaps you can explain?